Posted
by
Zonkon Sunday October 23, 2005 @03:41PM
from the prisoners-develope-interest-in-coding dept.

Ruvim writes "A Michigan State audit shows a software glitch let some prisoners get out early. From the article: 'The audit report shows errors in the release dates of 23 prisoners between October 2003 and March 2005. Some were let out early, while others were let out late... A flaw in computer programming caused State jails to release 8 prisoners anywhere from 39-161 days early, prisoners who were doing time for everything from embezzlement and drugs to bad check writing.'"

A whole 39 days early? Shit! They ought to hunt that bastard down and horsewhip them.

I guess I don't see the 'crisis' in this other than these people were low-level, non-violent offenders. If a software glitch had let a Ted Bundy out for another killing spree, I would probably be more concerned.

Fact is, we have WAAAAAY too many people in jail as it is. If we were to only charge and incarcerate those who pose a safety risk to the rest of society then you could probably monitor the entire population in half as many facilities with 1/3 of the correctional officers we have today.

The US incarcerates people largely to punish them for stuff they do to themselves. If someone is strung out on meth or heroin, they are only a problem to me if they steal something to support their habit. Considering the fact that theft is already a crime, I can't see how locking up people who are casual users and functioning addicts helps society at all.

These prison systems are getting too complex, too expensive, and are locking too many people away for "their own good".

Rep. Rick Jones: " 8 people is too many. I understand the department found another 15, that's too many, even 1 is too many."

Fuck that. Notice he shed no tears for the few that were held too long? I'm glad some of them got out early. The only sad thing in this story is that somebody got held longer than they should have.

The US incarcerates people largely to punish them for stuff they do to themselves. If someone is strung out on meth or heroin, they are only a problem to me if they steal something to support their habit. Considering the fact that theft is already a crime, I can't see how locking up people who are casual users and functioning addicts helps society at all.

These prison systems are getting too complex, too expensive, and are locking too many people away for "their own good".

It's essentially the Catholic Justice System. You're locked away not so much because of offenses you commit that harm other people, but for offenses that upset god and baby jesus and mother mary and all that jazz. How else do you explain laws intended to punish 18 year olds having sex with same-sex 15 year olds with 17 years in prison, but punish 18 year olds having sex with female 15 year olds with 15 months in prison? It's all about morality and just because something is considered "immoral" by many doesn't make it harmful to anyone.

I think the Baptists would take exception at your excluding them from this party. They like controlling people too.

You're locked away not so much because of offenses you commit that harm other people, but for offenses that upset god and baby jesus and mother mary and all that jazz.

And it is only getting worse. Every year some dumbass politician screws the whole world up with just six simple words: "There ought to be a law!"

How else do you explain laws intended to punish 18 year olds having sex with same-sex 15 year olds with 17 years in prison, but punish 18 year olds having sex with female 15 year olds with 15 months in prison?

You can't. Neither can you rationalize incarcerating a person who does drugs, keeps their job, pays their taxes, and doesn't commit any other criminal offense. They *try* to rationalize it by claiming that "they need treatment" as though the criminal justice system is any substitute for medical therapy.

It's all about morality and just because something is considered "immoral" by many doesn't make it harmful to anyone.

If they were growing their own drugs you would sort of have a point. But their meth/crack/weed money goes to some fairly nasty people (encouragement and power to them), who don't do drug stuff exclusively.

In other words, we have to make pot illegal because if you use pot you give your money to nasty people who would barely be in business if they weren't selling pot.

And we also have to control people's free time, because if we didn't then they wouldn't be doing what we wanted.

Those are the very justifications I had in mind, in addition to productivity.

I'm not saying that everyone has to be monitored in their free time, and then smacked for every little rule they break. If drug use really has no effect then it won't reach the treshold where it needs a deterrent. It often does though, and is discovered by someone who reports it to the police / social workers etc, because it caused a problem, either for someones child, themselves or because they were being a general nuisance. If s

There' one flaw in that argument: If $DRUG was legal, people wouldn't need to give their money to some shady dealer who in turn gives his money to a drug syndicate. The FDA would make sure that there are certain standards it has to meet and the legal system would make sure that the huge corporations owning the market (if $DRUG === "marijuana" that would most probably be the tobacco companies) would stay mostly clean. Shady people would make less money because they couldn't compete with the mass production that the big corporations would do - and the prices associated with it. Especially if production and/or sale are coupled to strong regulation.

Yes, most drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) are detrimental to one's time/revenue ratio, which is a reason to legislate against them. But "if people buy this stuff the money goes to bad people" is not, because the money only goes to bad people because no one else can sell the stuff.

I don't believe you meant that, did you? Popcorn, eh? Whoo-ee, that is pricey stuff. With a quick search I can find it at £1.27 *per kilo*. And with the amount it expands on cooking, that would probably last about 2 or 3 years of regular popcorn eating.

If they were growing their own drugs you would sort of have a point. But their meth/crack/weed money goes to some fairly nasty people (encouragement and power to them), who don't do drug stuff exclusively.

Then you should be against prohibition. The Italian and Irish organized crime organizations of the early 20th Century were just a minor nuisance until alcohol prohibition made them rich.

And if it became accepted to do crack, and more people did it, less cool stuff would be done in the real world, because m

Of course, you don't give a shit about that. Just so long as some person next door isn't getting shitfaced on dope. He can get drunk off his ass, but God Forbid that he do meth.

Just my prospective: personally, I think abusing anything of any kind (drugs, alcohol, food, gambling, Japanese school girl panties vending machines, whatever) is bad for the mind and body--but also for any kind of close relation, especially children... Without getting into morals and that crap, my argument is based on the relative

Very good points. I dislike the effects of prohibition (if drugs are illegal, only criminals can make money selling them), and I wish there was a way to get both the deterrence factor of punishment and the regulation and taxation of ceasing prohibition.

If they were growing their own drugs you would sort of have a point. But their meth/crack/weed money goes to some fairly nasty people...

This is a good argument against participation in the illegal drug trade. Black market activities of many sorts involve giving money to unsavory people who do bad things with it. It would be much better if there were some way to funnel all that meth/crack/weed money into law-abiding, tax-paying businesses.

And if it became accepted to do crack, and more people did it, less cool stuff would be done in the real world, because more people would have fun doing crack instead. So, stfu. Just because everyone and their sister smokes pot in the US doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Do you want to live in a free society or not? If you want a free society, then you have to believe that it is ok for people to do crack or "cool stuff", as long as that's what they wanted to do (and they didn't truly injure a non-consenting th

I never said I wanted to live in a free society. I want to live in a sensibly structured, democratic society. Anarchism works fine if there's only one person, but because of the flaws of humanity (greed, stupidity, malice, insanity) we need rules and punishment for those that break them.

I never said I wanted to live in a free society. I want to live in a sensibly structured, democratic society. Anarchism works fine if there's only one person, but because of the flaws of humanity (greed, stupidity, malice, insanity) we need rules and punishment for those that break them.

And I never said I wanted to live in anarchy. The free society I described wasn't anarchy. I said people in such a society should be free to do whatever they want IF "they didn't truly injure a non-consenting third party in

The money you spend filling your tank with gas goes to some fairly nasty people who don't do oil-industry-related stuff exclusively. Supporters of terrorism, organized crime, extortion, kidnapping, murder. So, stfu. Just because everyone and their sister uses gasoline in the US doesn't mean it's a good thing. It's pretty clear -- people who use gasoline to power their motorcoaches should be incarcerated.

Meth and crack, at least, create a public safety hazard because users often exhibit dangerous behavior in public. With meth, there's a double whammy, because production is also hazardous. That's the main reason why the penalties for production and distribution of those sorts of drugs are so stiff.I don't really think there's a huge public safety hazard concerning weed (no more than alcohol, anyway, and generally only connected with driving), but there may be an economic productivity incentive to keep peop

If they were growing their own drugs you would sort of have a point. But their meth/crack/weed money goes to some fairly nasty people (encouragement and power to them), who don't do drug stuff exclusively.

Ah, so you're one of those "smoking pot leads to twin towers being blown up" theorists? Always good to get your opinions on drugs from mass-marketing media.

And if it became accepted to do crack, and more people did it, less cool stuff would be done in the real world, because more people would have f

Wow. That statement wasn't laced with intolerance. Naw. I mean, heck, you could even be a Chinese army official carrying out the extermination of Tibetans because well... their system is religious and therefore silly. Why would anyone want religion when you can offer progress?

Law is an external deposit of morality. Your idea of deciding if something is immoral is testing to see if it hurts someone. You want law to minimize suffering. You think suffering is a Bad thing (absolute moral qualifier). There are a lot of people who think morality is different. You not only look down upon their beliefs, but also think that your way is better. That your version of morality is better. Sounds like you're the same type of person as those other people... you care passionately about how to determine good from bad. Law is where society as a whole comes together and lays down the morality of the majority because nearly all functioning human beings care deeply about morality.

To speak more specifically on the idea of incarcerating adults (18 year olds) who have sex with minors (less than 18 years old), you could always consider the utilitarian argument. For the most part, 18 year olds have a chance at economic freedom, the ability to support themselves independent of their parents -- a productive member of a capitalist society. A minor does not necessarily have that same freedom (because of other laws, like child labor laws). That restriction is important because it sends a clear signal to those tempted to drop out of school that there will be barriers (and also theoretically involves the parents, implying a certain strength of the family). Why would you drop out of school? Because you're pregnant or because you're suffering from the emotional and psychological issues generated from considering and implementing abortion. High school drop outs usually are a liability to society, unable to produce much with their lives (they influence limited amounts of happiness). That family having to support their child for a longer period of time will spend less money. Furthermore, this effects the amount of retirement funds allocated to the family and to the child. A high school graduate will not be able to put in as much into the social security system as a college graduate. This stresses an already stressed (perhaps even broken) system. This law is in support of family. And that isn't just a moral statement, but a measurable economic factor as well. Japan is beginning to show signs of familial breakdown and their health system is having to support more people in their old-age. Same for Europe.

Law is an external deposit of morality. Your idea of deciding if something is immoral is testing to see if it hurts someone. You want law to minimize suffering. You think suffering is a Bad thing (absolute moral qualifier). There are a lot of people who think morality is different. You not only look down upon their beliefs, but also think that your way is better. That your version of morality is better.

Law and morality, althoug related, are not the same thing. If you think that actions which don't harm othe

Actually, it's the Corporate Justice System. Prisoners make fine cheap laborers [inthesetimes.com] for a good number of American corporations, as well as a profit center for said corporations and privately run correctional facilities. Now do you understand why having some reefer is an imprisonable offense? It's always the dollars. (Not surprisingly, Tom DeLay has profitted from prison profit centers. Hopefully someone will now profit from his imminent incarceration...)

If we were to only charge and incarcerate those who pose a safety risk to the rest of society then you could probably monitor the entire population in half as many facilities with 1/3 of the correctional officers we have today.

Writers of bad checks are gravely dangerous to society. They hurt the economy. And yes, that is very important -- unless you are prepared to argue against locking up rogue CEOs too.

The reason this bug did not let any serious crooks out early is, probably, because there is more hum

I never said that they had *no* impact on society, but measured against violent offenders, check kiters are peanuts.

You also forgot to mention that people like mega-corp CEOs will do more damage to the economy than the average check kiter. How much time do all of the convicted CEOs do collectivly? I'll bet it is only a fraction of what your average petty thief gets. That kind of differential only makes the public more suspicious of the criminal justice

It's seemed to work fairly well for the past dozen or so years as prison sentences, particularly for violent felonies, have gotten stiffer and fewer inmates have been released. This tracks reasonably well with the decrease in violent crime. Even as the economy soured at the end of 2000/beginning of 2001 and continued to remain soft for the next couple of years, crimes didn't increase all that much.

That's a different story. California for the last year or two has been experimenting with a mandatory detox program for first offenses (and I think also first offense past the date of passage in case of repeat offenders). I'm not sure how well that's done at this point. I should go look.

Excatly, Rep. Rick Jones is a pompous ass, if you look at his previous statements you see the pattern. He could care less about the innocent in jail or those that server a longer sentence than they are supposed to. But then this is very typical of the politicians. If they can jump on the uproar bandwagon or start one they can keep their name out there for election time.It's not about laws, leadership, truth, or democracy... It's about how much can I get my name in the press and in front of voters so they

You continue to confuse the issue. The article and this discussion is talking about one thing, and you're going off in a tangent about something else.At issue is the INTEGRITY of the computer system, which keeps track of when a prisoner is allowed out. If it's so buggy that it lets criminals out early, it can also keep prisoners longer than it should.

However, just because a computer system has bugs doesn't mean you should go and throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead you fix the system and apply

Exactly. Computer systems shouldn't be treated as flawless, because they rarely ever are. At my university, they kept all the records on paper, as well as on the computer system. The paper was the official record. I'm pretty sure they kept back ups of both the paper and digital records. The paper records were computer printed forms that were filled in by hand. Basically, they were aware that computers could have errors, or have changes done to the records that could go unnoticed.

Note that not locking up people for petty crimes does not equal abolishing jails. The grandparent does not argue that jails are bad, he argues that jails should focus on locking up dangerous offenders like the rapist you mentioned istead of wasting resources on someone who has been caught stealing gum three times. Or, in other words:

Scientists Discover Color That Is Neither Black Nor White
Todey, Joseph Sixpack from the National Institute For Research Into Things That Are Black And White (NIFRITTABAW) an

That reminds me of a funny headline in the NYTimes. Paraphrased it said:

Jails overflowing despite record low crime rates!"

I doubled over laughing. The Times brainiacs actually didn't understand how the jails could have so many people in them when crime was down so much. Obviously, they deduced, this proved that the Bush administration was locking up innocent people. In reality they were actually too stupid (or blinded by their biases) to real

Oh please. Forgive me if I find your explanation of the article and its headline to be difficult to believe. Something tells me there were probably several pieces of nuance you are neglecting to mention, and a substantially less idiotic headline than you implying.Why must you angry right-wing nutjobs flap your arms about misrepresenting liberals as a bunch of idiots to make yourselves look right? You are so obviously attacking a straw man, it's not even funny.

Fact is, we have WAAAAAY too many people in jail as it is. If we were to only charge and incarcerate those who pose a safety risk to the rest of society then you could probably monitor the entire population in half as many facilities with 1/3 of the correctional officers we have today.

Unfortunately, some people who are not dangerous are not detered by anything short of prison. Even after some prison time, some will still repeat the offense. Look up Maricopa County's Tent City Jail.

Unfortunately, some people who are not dangerous are not detered by anything short of prison. Even after some prison time, some will still repeat the offense.

How many of those repeat offenders are drug cases? How many are property violations? How many are violent offenders?

My point is that if someone is only harming themselves, why should I be asked to shell out my hard-earned cash to lock them up? I'd rather they were holding down a job, helping grow the economy, and paying their OWN fucking taxes.

But this system doesn't manage the stock market, guide smartbombs, or manage blood banks. It's a supposed to manage a prison population's incarceration terms. Given that, flaws don't really get any more major than getting those terms wrong. I suppose they could have been off by MORE time, but imprisoning someone for even a day longer than the courts decided was appropriate for their crime is MAJORLY wrong.

No, while bankers might be criminals, the point was that even if the mistake was something so small as my bank account, I'd get a different bank. Letting criminals go early is bad, and letting them go late is a crime in its own right, though some might disagree.

Even though it was only a month early, who is to say this "minor.... ahem" computer glitch couldn't let people go years earlier than planned. Also, shouldn't jails use both computer and physical data to make absolutely sure they are doing things properly? I know someone is going to comment to this saying that I'm wrong and that it would take too much space for all those filing cabinets, but I say that this is a perfect example of how I'm right. If they had another medium to check their data, this minor computer glitch could have been found and fixed, with no mess-ups.

I know someone is going to comment to this saying that I'm wrong and that it would take too much space for all those filing cabinets, but I say that this is a perfect example of how I'm right. If they had another medium to check their data, this minor computer glitch could have been found and fixed, with no mess-ups.

Right now the jails are fighting for adequate storage space for the inmates. We could put the paper files in the jail cells to promote literacy. Once you learn to rea

Having had a "friend" involved in the corrections system I find the article missing some key information. Most states hand out time with both a minimum and a maximum sentence. So, far example, one might get a 3 1/2 to 7 year sentence. This means you may get out on parole after 3 1/2 years but if they don't want to let you go they can keep you 7 years. Also, sometimes one could get time taken off the minimum sentence for participating in various "programs" or for "good behaviour" but the max usually stays where it started. So, what I want to know is this: Did they keep them earlier/later than their minimum sentence or maximum sentence? If one got kept later than their minimum sentence, there is no legal recourse because technically they can keep you to the max. If they let you out before your minimum sentence then they really screwed up in letting you out earlier. If they let you out later then your maximum sentence then they really screwed up and could face a lawsuit. Anything in the middle would just suck for one side, but not be a legal issue.

Can anyone provide more technical information regarding this flaw? What sort of hardware were these systems running on? What operating system(s)? Who wrote the software itself, what language was it written in, and what was the exact cause of the flaw? Was it a database flaw? If so, which database product was it?

The problem seems to be more than software or hardware. A state law created a sentence-length committee or ruleset that was not fully communicated to the Department of Corrections (DOC). The DOC tried to interpret the information they had and came up with a manual for calculating a prisoner's release date. This manual includes two non-automated methods of calculating a simple release date, and some informal rules for calculating release dates in general. The DOC later wrote (or contracted out the writing of) the program that automatically calculates release dates.

The audit being reported compared the computer computation with the two non-automated methods and found that none of the three gave the same results. Not only was the software inconsistant with the manual, but the manual was self-inconsistant. The software may have actually used the right calculation, but the audit seemed unable to determine what the right calculation was (because of the confusing state law mentioned earlier).

I read the PDF, but it still doesn't outline what exactly the problem was, even if it was most likely a software bug. Was it an incorrectly written strftime-style routine? Was it a non-library problem manipulating the dates? Did the compiler emit incorrect code? Was the data being stored incorrectly in the database? Was the database a lossy database, losing or unknowingly modified data?

Read the post you replied to. It was none of those things. The people writing the software didn't know what the rules for calculating the release date were. So they coded what they thought was right, but it was wrong. This has nothing to do with software -- the software did what it was supposed to. It just so happened that nobody actually knew how to calculate release dates properly.

The real victims in this case are the ones who were kept longer in jail without conviction. It's quite scary that no one at WLNS apparently cares about them. A toast to the future of the american justice system. I hope it has one.

So can someone please explain to me why "bad check writing" can land you in jail? This is not a rhetorical question, I seriously want to know. Is it considered fraud? It sounds a bit like debtors' jail, which is outlawed in this country, right?

Why wouldn't it? Yes, it's fraud - unlike situations where you were *voluntarily* extended credit. If you don't repay a debt, it's ultimately the problem for the person or business that chose to take the *risk* that you'd repay as promised. If you write a check, you're signing a paper promising that the amount of funds written on it will be paid. If those funds really aren't there, you've misrepresented the situation. In a way, it's much more akin to paying with counterfeit money you printed up in adva

That sounds like an order to someone, not a promise. IE, it doesnt say "I have sufficient funds in this negotiable draft account to pay this person X amount, and X person should be allowed to withdraw this amount on demand." If that's what they want me to agree to, then my check should have to say that. It says it for credit cards...

The summary emphasizes the let out early part, as does the title. But hey, I'm not so pissed about that, but "while others were let out late" really pisses me off. If you can't even tell them what punishment they're going to receive at most 100% of the time, then there are major issues that need to be resolved.

I have two questions:1. Why don't they check the (paper!) documents they got from the judge or whoever to check if they really were sheduled to go out that day?2. Why didn't those let out late complain? I'm sure the first thing they did when they got there, was circling the date they were sheduled to get out on their calender. (or whatever paper they have handy). How can they not notice that they passed that date by x weeks?

This story as usually raises more questions than it answers...

OT rant: Damn you, shallow news outlets! If a plane crashes, we get every small detail about what happened on which second, and what systems failed, but when it's about computer problems, all they can tell us is a 'glitch' or a 'crash' happened because they think it would be 'too technical'. Just tell exactly what the problem was, and if people don't understand completely, it's not going to kill them.

This says nothing about the underlying problem. Was the release date incorrectly scheduled from the start? Did it change mysteriously while the person was incarcerated? Did the system just incorrectly say "Release this guy" on a random day? Did it give the wrong person to be released? If so, was there any similarities between the two inmates? There just isn't enough information here to make any guesses.

Was it a contractor or an in-house developed project would also be interesting. As well as what happened to the inmates who were released late? Is it just "tough luck" for them?

... "minor glitches". the sorts that cost banks millions in dollars as fractional pennies are gobbled up or cause machines designed to treat cancer with radiotherapy burn and kill patients. if i were a resident of michgan, i'd demand an inquiry and follow it up with at least one big law suit. this should have been discovered and fixed during testing, not deployment.

isn't a software to be used at such a sensitive level supposed to be reviewed N number of times before it is deployed? This glitch sounds like it'd have been an easy one to get caught if reviewed by enough eyeballs.

...that once you have served your time you are again a citizen. So why is it more upsetting that criminals are released early than that citizens are kept locked up in prison? I think that is at least as problematic.